JOSE R. VILLANUEVA, CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF BUTUAN, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. MONTANO A. ORTIZ, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN, ANTONIO MORDENO AND MALAQUIAS…

On December 9, 1953, the City Attorney of Butuan filed with the
Municipal Court of that city Criminal Case No. 607 against Antonio
Mordeno and Malaquias Fortun, and Criminal Case No. 608 against Antonio
Mordeno, charging the accused in each case with assault upon a person in authority with disturbance of public order. For quick reference, the informations in the said criminal cases are reproduced, to wit:

“That
on or about November 10, 1953, in barrio Ba-an, Butuan City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, and
while the board of election inspectors were in session performing their
duties as such inspectors and poll clerk in Precinct 36-A in the last
general election held on November 10, 1953, the said accused
confederating, cooperating and helping one another, entered one of the
rooms of Ba-an Elementary School where Precinct 36-A was then located
and where inspectors and poll clerk of said precinct were then holding
their meeting to canvass the result of the election in said precinct,
and once there, the accused Antonio Mondeno did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal
violence upon the person of Narciso Medrano, a duly appointed and
qualified inspector of said precinct 36-A and while performing his
official duties as such inspector and on the occasion of such
performance by then and there boxing him and the accused Malaquias
Fortun, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and use personal violence upon the person of Apolinario
Lupos, a duly appointed watcher in said precinct and while performing
his duties as such watcher thereby causing serious disturbance and
interrupting or disturbing public performance and functions of said
precinct 36-A and 35-A which was then in the adjacent room in the same
building.”

“That on or about the evening of November 10,
1953, in barrio Ba-an, Butuan City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and while the Board of Inspectors
were in session performing their duties as such Inspectors and Poll
clerk in Precinct No. 35 of the last general election held on November
10, 1953, the said accused entered the rooms of the Ba-an Public
Elementary School where Precinct No. 35 was then located and where
inspectors and poll clerk of said precinct were then holding its
meeting to canvass the result of the election in said precinct, and did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and use personal violence upon the person of Simeon Loquinte, a duly
appointed and qualified election inspector of said Precinct No. 35 and
while performing his official duties as such inspector and on the
occasion of such performance by then and there boxing him and Pablo
Remoneda, a duly appointed watcher in the said precinct and while
performing his duties as such watcher thereby causing serious
disturbance and interrupting or disturbing public performances and
functions of the Board of Inspectors of said Precinct No. 35 and
Precinct No. 35-A which was in the adjacent room.”

The corresponding warrants of arrest were issued by the Municipal
Court, and the accused having waived their right to the second stage of
preliminary investigation, the cases were forwarded to the Court of
First Instance of Agusan for trial on the merits.

New
informations for the same charge were thus filed with the Court of
First Instance. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded “not guilty”, and
after a joint trial, during which evidence was adduced by the parties,
the cases were submitted for decision. The Court of First Instance,
however, instead of deciding the cases upon their merits, issued, on
September 30, 1958, a resolution remanding them to the Municipal Court
for lack or jurisdiction. This on the theory that the accused by boxing
the election inspectors and watchers as charged in the information
committed the crime of assault without intent to kill, one of the
offenses enumerated in section 87 (c) of the Judiciary Act of
1948, which is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of First
Instance and the Municipal Court, but which falls, in these cases,
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court because it was
the first to take cognizance thereof.

Motion for
reconsideration of that resolution having been denied, the City
Attorney, alleging that the lower court acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, now petitions us to
declare null and void the said resolution, and to order the judge to
render judgment in the said cases in accordance with the evidence
presented during the trial held before him.

The petition is well taken.

Settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases
is determined by the allegations of the complaint or information
(People vs. Mission, 87 Phil., 641; 48 Off. Gaz., 1330). A
careful scrutiny of the allegations in the informations aforequoted
shows that the accused are charged to have committed not only the crime
of assault upon a person in authority defined in Article 148 of the
Revised Penal Code but also that of disturbance of public order defined
in Article 153 of the same Code. For it is alleged therein that the
accused by laying hands upon election inspectors and watchers in public
places, had caused serious disturbance and interrupted or disturbed
public performances and functions. The accused are thus charged with
the complex crime of assault upon a person in authority with
disturbance of public order.

The Revised Penal Code (Article 148) imposes the penalty of imprisonment of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos
upon anyone who commits the crime of direct assault when, as in these
cases, the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. And Article
153 of the same Code imposes the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional
in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos for any
serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment, or
interruption or disturbance of public performances, functions or
gatherings of peaceful meetings. Each separate crime charged in the
information is, therefore, punishable with imprisonment of more than
six months and a fine of more than two hundred pesos. Consequently,
they are, according to section 44, paragraph (f) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 (Republic Act 296), within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

The lower court in remanding the cases to the Municipal Court has taken
the position that there is only one crime charged, that of direct
assault, or, more specifically, assault upon a person in authority.
Granting that only the crime of assault upon a person in authority is
charged, still the Court of First Instance would have jurisdiction over
the cases. While the said section of the Judiciary Act provides that
the Justice of the Peace Court and Municipal Court have original
jurisdiction over cases of “assault where the intent to kill is not
charged and evident upon trial”, this does not include direct assaults
defined and penalized under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code.
“Assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon
trial” apparently refers to crimes against persons, under Title Eight
of the Code. Direct assaults defined under Article 148, on the other
hand, are crimes against public order falling under Title Three of the
Code. In direct assaults, the victim is a person in authority or his
agent, and the attack, employment of force or intimidation is committed
on the occasion of the performance of official duties or by reason of
such performance. Also punishable as direct assault is the employment
of force or intimidation without a public uprising for the attainment
of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion
and sedition. The principal object of Article 148 is to penalize the
commission of acts against public order as may be indicated by its
classification in the Revised Penal Code.

In any event, even
assuming that the offenses charged in the cases at bar come within the
meaning of the “assaults’ mentioned in section 87 (c), subparagraph 2
of the Judiciary Act, it has already been held that the jurisdiction of
Municipal Courts and Justices of the Peace over the specific offenses
mentioned in said section 87 (c) of the Judiciary Act is
concurrent with Court of First Instance when the penalty to be imposed
exceed six months imprisonment or a fine of more than two hundred pesos
(Natividad vs. Robles, 87 Phil., 834; People vs. Colicio, 88 Phil., 196; People vs.
Palmon, 86 Phil., 350; 47 Off. Gaz., Supp. December 1951, p. 29). And
it clearly appearing that the informations filed with the Municipal
Court of Butuan City, contrary to the holding of the court below, were
just for purposes of preliminary investigation—not to mention the fact
that the Court of First Instance of Agusan had already tried them on
the merits—it was error for the latter court to still remand the cases
to the Municipal Court. Where two or more courts have concurrent
jurisdiction, the first to validly acquire it takes it to the exclusion
of the other or the rest (Alimajen vs. Valera, et al., 107 Phil., 244; 57 Off. Gaz. [28] 5095; citing Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil., 356; 42 Off. Gaz. No. 11, 2835; People vs. Livera, 94 Phil., 771; and Lumpay, et al vs. Moscoso, 105 Phil., 968.)

In view of the foregoing, the resolution complained of is declared null
and void, and the Court of First Instance of Agusan is hereby ordered
to render judgment in the criminal cases above-mentioned in consonance
with law and the evidence presented before it during the trial. No
costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Barrera, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J., concurs in the result.